World
India
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out the murder conviction and death sentence of Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutors violated his constitutional rights by withholding crucial information and relying on faulty testimony. The decision paves the way for a new trial in a case that has long drawn controversy and calls for justice reform.
BREAKING: A 5-3 Supreme Court *wiped out* Okla. inmate Richard E. Glossip’s conviction and death sentence and ordered a new trial after the state confessed that prosecutorial misconduct likely tainted his 2004 trial.
(Glossip v. Oklahoma, 22-7466) #SCOTUShttps://t.co/k3AbyN8we9 pic.twitter.com/4aiw1YDHlV— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) February 25, 2025
Glossip, 62, was convicted for the 1997 murder of his former employer, motel owner Barry Van Treese, in what prosecutors claimed was a murder-for-hire plot. The case hinged primarily on the testimony of co-worker Justin Sneed, who admitted to killing Van Treese but alleged that Glossip orchestrated the crime in exchange for $10,000. Sneed, who struck a plea deal, received a life sentence in exchange for his testimony, a fact that has fueled skepticism about the integrity of Glossip’s conviction.
Glossip’s defense
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after the justices heard arguments in October, with an unusual consensus between Glossip’s defense and the Oklahoma state prosecutors agreeing that he did not receive a fair trial. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, stated, “We conclude that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony,” emphasizing that the evidence used against Glossip was flawed and improperly presented.
However, the ruling was not unanimous. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, criticized the majority’s interpretation, stating, “The Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor… On the merits, it finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witness’s medical condition.” Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, arguing to uphold the conviction and sentence, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested allowing a state appeals court to determine the next course of action.
Start of a fresh trial
At the core of the Supreme Court’s decision was whether Glossip’s due process rights were violated when prosecutors failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence. The state’s highest criminal court had previously upheld Glossip’s conviction despite the emergence of new evidence, but the Supreme Court has now determined that a fresh trial is necessary to ensure justice is served.
Glossip’s case has garnered widespread attention, with activists, legal experts, and even some Oklahoma officials expressing concerns over the fairness of his trial. With a new trial now on the horizon, his legal team and supporters are hopeful that he will receive a fair hearing, free from prosecutorial misconduct and questionable testimony.
ALSO READ: Poland Mobilizes Military Aircraft Amid Russian Strikes On Western Ukraine
